GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

05-04-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	126
Post ID:	20763
Reply to:	20762

A complicated subject

I need to note that MicroTTs, American Sound and a few other TTs with very heavy palter are complicated subjects. From one perspective a heavy platter is the key. I remember years back a few years Lechintsky published mathematical equivalents of TT with all time of drives. According to his concussions (that in my view was biased toward to his own madness) if TT has platter the mass of which has the torque from motor and mass of belt/motor become negligible then all calculation and all theories are goes to toilet and TT acts as “perfect” TT, at least from rotational perspective. Sure, the heavier mass of planter is unbeatable argument and it is why the American Sound reportedly sounds “better”. (I do not have my own experience to confirm it which would be not a statement about the given TT but about the theories of high palter mass)

Still, there is gimmick on here. High mass is presumably good but how to use that high mass, or what bearing to use? It is no problem with horizontal bearing; with the moment of inertia those types of TTs have the horizontal bearing is irrelevant. The vertical bearing is the bitch however. You can’t spread vertical bearing across multiple bearing as the relationship of bearing and total mass will make the bearing not negligible. So we need to put all the mass atop one ball. That itself is perfectly manageable task but as you putt let say 120 pounds atop of a few fraction of mm surface the question is how long will it live even with best materials and best lubrication.

The answer looks like reasonable: use air or magnets and they ended are very good solution. Still I have a feeling that air or magnet suspended TT do not sound as good as in very lower bass as they could because they have no “reference to ground”. The reasonable answer would be to have a heavy platter with conventional bearing that would take care of let say 10% of platter mass and the rest to be handled by air. No one makes the TT like this unfortunately.

About the new Micro TT, I do think that this is essentially the Micro 8000 with contemporary face lift and it shall sound like Micro 8000. It might be a little better or little worse, no one knows and frankly no one would/should care. I do not know the price of this TT, It looks like $95K in Poland and I anticipate $30-$40K street price in Japan. Considering the crap that the idiots sell to each other for no leas then $100K and that sound like $160 used Thorens turntable I would put my bet to new Micro. I still feel that the price is very exuberant and might be tolerable ONLY in High End audio lunacy. The price of High End audio TT shall be no more than $5K and it is the best of them. A TT as a functional entity has no higher value and if you look at engendering efforts to make such of devise and pretend that it would be done in any other industry then it would not cost more than $5K.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-04-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #:	127
Post ID:	20764
Reply to:	20763

A complicated subject

Romy the Cat wrote:

About the new Micro TT, I do think that this is essentially the Micro 8000 with contemporary face lift and it shall sound like Micro 8000. It might be a little better or little worse, no one knows and frankly no one would/should care.

You're right, this is what's available today.

Romy the Cat wrote:
The price of High End audio TT shall be no more than $5K and it is the best of them. A TT as a functional entity has no higher value and if you look at engendering efforts to make such of devise and pretend that it would be done in any other industry then it would not cost more than $5K.

You can't even get the parts made for $5k in bulk no less retail price of the finished TT. Maybe if you machined something basic like your SX-8000 without vacuum, then the $5k cost would be realistic but not as a business model.
david

05-04-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	128
Post ID:	20765
Reply to:	20764

TT price.

David, you are thinking like a basement TT maker, which is all todays TT makers in one way or another. The reality is that no one need TTs and the makers happy to make and to sell 5 turntables a year. For sure it is expensive and difficult to make. The reality is that the level of engineering solutions and expense of implementation of our TTs for today industrial force is lobule. Your let say snow blower that cost $2.5K is way more sophisticated engineering devise. If let say LG would decide to make Micro-like TT than it will be sold in Best Buy with price tag of $2K, the table of Clearaudio reference would be sold for $199.95, but two and get third free. Let with all out love to our turntables do not forget that they are VERY simple engendering devises. We in HiFi are willing to pay a lot for our TT as industry idiotic propaganda convince us that our TTs are some kind of marvels of human endeavor that possess the secretive masonic properties. The reality is that TT is very simple engineering devise and with proper no paranoia approach it shell cost as any equitable engineering devise. A mechanical watch that you were costs $200 and it shows time very fine. You might convince yourself that this watch worth to you $200K and it will be fine, the problem that it will not show time more accurate. You know well that many High-End mega bucks TT in fact sounds no better than 8-truck tape. Those TT that in fact so sound well sound good not because they are expensive but because they made differently, this “difference” is not in cost and it might be in many instances be accomplished by very moderate means.

BTW, be advised that I am very critical when people talk seriously and confidently about high flying TT and my observation is that analog is very tricky subject and many people juts do not need any high flying TT as their rest of playback do not take advantage of the margins where the high flying TT “presumably” operate.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-04-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #:	129
Post ID:	20766
Reply to:	20765

Costs

Romy the Cat wrote:
David, you are thinking like a basement TT maker, which is all todays TT makers in one way or another. The reality is that no one need TTs and the makers happy to make and to sell 5 turntables a year. For sure it is expensive and difficult to make. The reality is that the level of engineering solutions and expense of implementation of our TTs for today industrial force is lobule. Your let say snow blower that cost $2.5K is way more sophisticated engineering devise. If let say LG would decide to make Micro-like TT than it will be sold in Best Buy with price tag of $2K, the table of Clearaudio reference would be sold for $199.95, but two and get third free. Let with all out love to our turntables do not forget that they are VERY simple engendering devises. We in HiFi are willing to pay a lot for our TT as industry idiotic propaganda convince us that our TTs are some kind of marvels of human endeavor that possess the secretive masonic properties. The reality is that TT is very simple engineering devise and with proper no paranoia approach it shell cost as any equitable engineering devise. A mechanical watch that you were costs $200 and it shows time very fine. You might convince yourself that this watch worth to you $200K and it will be fine, the problem that it will not show time more accurate. You know well that many High-End mega bucks TT in fact sounds no better than 8-truck tape. Those TT that in fact so sound well sound good not because they are expensive but because they made differently, this “difference” is not in cost and it might be in many instances be accomplished by very moderate means.

BTW, be advised that I am very critical when people talk seriously and confidently about high flying TT and my observation is that analog is very tricky subject and many people juts do not need any high flying TT as their rest of playback do not take advantage of the margins where the high flying TT “presumably” operate.

Sure, $100k is high but the TechDas or older Micros, EMTs aren't appliances. They're precision instruments that were designed and engineered for a particular function and act as a reference standard. I'm actually surprised given your own experience that you're suggesting this. If what you say was true and so easy to make we would have seen a lot more quality products around. There's just so much you can in a mass manufacturing situation. What you fail to recognize is the overhead that a company like LG has, there's no way that an engineering dept dedicated to high end audio isn't going to cost them an arm and a leg. You're also neglecting the cost of money for upfront investment in any kind of volume situation.
I was a manufacturer for most of my working life and there were always some clients with the same arguments. I used to give them a bag of materials and sent them off to make it by themselves, with a guarantee that I would buy at least a 1000 of that item if they could make or have it made the same quality product for the price they offered me. They didn't have to spend the money to come with the idea and design something from scratch, just copy it for those prices!
Forget everything else your figures don't even cover the cost of raw metal!
david

05-05-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	131
Post ID:	20768
Reply to:	20766

I have a slightly diferent view.

David, I think you a bit overly glorify the notion of "precision instruments" that we all are a bit taken in high-end audio. If you go to a good hobby shop and by a microscope for 200 dollars, or lawn mower for $300, or a kitchen juicer for $300 then you will get a devise that will be orders of magnitude build to a more precise specification then TTs ever seen. With civilized production discipline the "precision" that TT is made is not a problem at all, if appropriate engineering recourses be put into it. The cost of material and our exaltation about the materials is truly laughable. It for sure "explain" the cost if case of 5 turntables are made and sold a year but it does so only for the people who wiling subscribe the explanation. Yes, the Micro turntables topology is expensive and this why it might cost a few thousand dollars, the rest TTs shall cost a few hundred dollars.

Think about musical instruments. How much cost to make and sell a viola or trumpet for instance? Virtually nothing and this is why you will see zillion chip violas or trumpets for $300. Yeas, there are some instilments that cost millions but pay attention - it is not because it was more expensive to make them and no one justify their price because the "cost of raw metals" and "precision of making". The very same in TT and in fact it has to be the same in any other aspect of audio: the cost shall be determined by an ability to deliver an advanced result. Since high End audio industry has no "definition of success" and after the years of selling crap to consummates the stupid industry did not developed even simplistic result assessment methodology then there is absolutely no reasons, in my view, to justify a TT cost in the way how we would do it for viola or trumpet. The "cost of raw metals" and "precision of making" has absolutely no relation to an ability of TT to be or not to be more engaging in a musical message of a performance. We think that we do, but I am not sure that our thinking is accurate.

The TT that would welcome would be very different then what you envision as "ultimate". it would be light and literally $20 worth TT that would deliver somehow a phenomenal sound. That TT might cost a lot, in the very same way how a very cheaply made musical instrument might deliver a stunning sound and to be very valid for a given particular player. Do not think that I am so naive about the musical instruments pricing, in many instances they have as much BS as we have in audio and they also sell crappie sounding instruments for very high price. However, the good thing about them that they do not BS each other with neither "cost of raw metals" nor with "precision of making".

Rgs, Me

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-05-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	132
Post ID:	20769
Reply to:	20768

On the Face of It

On the face of it, the AF1 represents a "finished high-end product". Clearly, it is well thought out and presented in this way, and this closing/finishing effort was not cheap. And the reasons for this are well understood, because only in this way can anyone reasonably hope to design, build, store, market, ship and service the thing to/for its most-likely customers, who (obviously) have to be in the first place those with the money to buy it. The big question in finalizing a design like this is not so much rote performance, rather, how to best recover the costs accrued in getting the product to the point of sale and hopefully make a few bucks for everyone's time and effort, as well, during the product's life cycle.

The basic elements of a TT are elementary rather than arcane. Too bad weight, in and of itself, is a liability in commerce. And fallout from the "weight issue" affects TTs right down to R&D, where people are +/- forced into "designing around" weight, UNLESS they are aiming their product WAY up market. If you look again at the REGA and imagine heavier, more inert construction and appropriate bearings and drive system, you might actually wind up with something good. Though the Spiral Groove SG1 is meant first to be a "product" competing at a "price point", and it is not cheap in its final, "marketable" form, this might be another +/- "minimal" design to think about in the context of this thread. Likewise, the simple core of the VPI HRX, including the rim weight in lieu of a vacuum.

Paul S

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

steverino
Posts 367
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #:	133
Post ID:	20770
Reply to:	20768

High end not high tech yet

Romy the Cat wrote:
David, I think you a bit overly glorify the notion of "precision instruments" that we all are a bit taken in high-end audio. If you go to a good hobby shop and by a microscope for 200 dollars, or lawn mower for $300, or a kitchen juicer for $300 then you will get a devise that will be orders of magnitude build to a more precise specification then TTs ever seen. With civilized production discipline the "precision" that TT is made is not a problem at all, if appropriate engineering recourses be put into it. ..... Do not think that I am so naive about the musical instruments pricing, in many instances they have as much BS as we have in audio and they also sell crappie sounding instruments for very high price. However, the good thing about them that they do not BS each other with neither "cost of raw metals" nor with "precision of making".

Rgs, Me

Boy what a great post. The halls of the high end shook a little and they didn't know why. The problem with all these different construction materials and forms is that there is never a systematic correlation with audio reproduction. You would need to keep the other components the same to test them all but that would inevitably favor some TT designs over the others. Thus TT makers can bloviate how the carbon fiber this or acrylic that makes all the difference. I think Paul is correct that weight itself might well be the decisive factor. This would suggest that we don't need to buy a heavy turntable since we can rest it on a heavy non vibrating stand or pedestal. Simply using better construction methods has rescued the old idler drive designs which indicates that high end TT design has never become high tech, no matter how complicated the design. Of course I'm not sure that if we banished all vibration that the result would that pleasing either given the nature of recordings and mic'ing.

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 526
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #:	134
Post ID:	20771
Reply to:	20770

Bloviation about turntables

steverino wrote:
You would need to keep the other components the same to test them all but that would inevitably favor some TT designs over the others...

Spot on. Loads of hype, a bit shy on the experimental proof. It starts out with a good idea, maybe even a valid idea, but then the marketing takes over to fuel sales. At these prices it has to...

steverino wrote:
Of course I'm not sure that if we banished all vibration that the result would that pleasing either given the nature of recordings and mic'ing.

I think the general consensus is that it is "too dead" without vibration, necessitating an "injection channel" or something along those lines. Wink

The goal perhaps needs to be replicating the conditions of the cutting head on the master disc, which is full of its own vibrations...

Adrian

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	135
Post ID:	20772
Reply to:	20771

To understand me correctly how I feel

I would like to note that my disagreement with David about his and other justification of TT high price does not imply that some of high price TT are very good performers, and it is highly possible that the new Micro AF1 is a very good sounding TT, in fact it would be a big surprise if it would not be. What I was taking was not the nature of turntables but rather our relationship with turntables or our completely voluntary subscription that "better" designed tenable produce some kind of advantageous empirical benefit for our listening experience.

A few weeks back I was reading at some kind of site, I do not remember where, a review about a new German turntable with price tag of $45K. It looks like lucid TT of mid class. The $45K was the price before some whore of Mike Framer stature take it to distribute worldwide and jack the price to $125K. However, the point us that it was absolutely gloving review with worshiping how much this TT sound better then anything that the reviewer have tried before and of cause the reviewer attributed the superb sonic performances of the TT to materials, precision and other casual suspects. I do not question the reviewer's concussions but I very much question the reviewer judgment and sanity. It was a guy with relatively large room, I would say 600 sq foot approximately with a single pair of 2A3 driving back-loaded single yellow driver speaker. I honestly feel that it is ridicules to observe the performance of a good TT in context of this installation. I do not say that the guy would not be able to knowledge difference but I do insist that the difference that he would even register will not have any beneficial value from the perspective of listening experience.

The Cat

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	136
Post ID:	20776
Reply to:	20770

Heavy Stand vs. Heavy Platter/TT

Steve, I do like the high-tech air mattress platforms, but I do not think they take the place of a heavy TT, especially the platter. Also, I agree with Romy about a "reference to ground". We have already talked (up the thread ?) about how heavy the platter needs to be before the accruing benefits become inaudible, and the general consensus was, pretty heavy. My own experience has borne this out to the extent that I gave up on the light TTs long ago. Setting aside the weight issues (a very loaded notion...), if nothing else, I think it is actually easier to produce an "acceptable" TT if it's heavier.

Although the methodology to test all this could probably be whipped up fairly quickly by a competent engineer, it seems the "TT Industry" would rather not do this, and each "manufacturer" in turn keeps trying instead to pull a proprietary rabbit out of a "name" designer hat. How funny would it be if a repeatable TT design/testing protocol popped up, like it has in most "manufacturing" quarters (eg., ASTM, etc., etc.)? How would anyone subsequently distinguish their proprietary designs? OTOH, at least at this point, it does look like there is just no setting aside the weight issues.

Best regards,
Paul S

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

rowuk

Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #:	137
Post ID:	20777
Reply to:	20767

What makes a turntable worth "the price"?

Don't we always go through this same discussion regardless if it is an amplifier, speaker, turntable, DAC (wine, cigars, frying pans)? Don't the arguments keep repeating themselves? Don't we all agree that IF a turntable NEEDS to cost 125K that something else is seriously wrong (unless your goal is to brag that yours is bigger, heavier and thus out of sonic context - even better)? Yes those that can hear the grass grow are truly cursed!

Turntables bother me a lot as computer harddrive technology has brought "chatter free" ball bearings as well as motor technology down to ridiculously low prices. That alone should bring wow and flutter down to "jitter" proportions. Modern machining has brought piece to piece consistency up to extremely high standards - at very interesting prices. There are almost infinite low cost ways to get essentially perfectly smooth motor rotation at any desired RPM. Hell we can even use tube regulators to improve the flavor of the electrons going to the motor.

I also am not ready to give up on "lower mass" TTs. Most of the time the speaker setup is so abominable that the TT is several orders of magnitude "less" problematic anyway.

This entire discussion with the AF1 has not brought one bit of "reason" why it should do better SONICALLY than many others in a less than EXTREMELY optimised playback situation - of which there are VERY few. None of the discussion puts those advantages into a playback SYSTEM context either. I seem to remember in the good old days when there were 50 fine turntables to choose from, that there actually were very convincing arguments for low and high mass TTs.

So, at the end of the day, let those that need to spend $125K do so. Let them exactly like every reviewer, publish the "arguments" that have no defined connection to Sound in Context. Basically we have exactly the SAME problem arguing against "overkill". Let's also not forget that that 125K TT needs a 50K stand, an 80K tonearm, at least a 10K cartridge - to play what? Records with a magnitude greater problem with centricity, wow/flutter from the cutting lathe, non documented EQ, non standard thickness and great diversity in the vinyl mix. We haven't even begun to talk about airborne vibrations that "attack" the resonant cartridge.

I get great enjoyment reading about all of the wonderful stuff these TTs allegedly perform. Actually, that is not quite right, I laugh my ass off. I would love to play two different trumpets for these special people - one for 600€ and one for $13.000. I own them both (and many more in between) and use them for different situations. Those golden ears seem to fail in the concert hall every time. The difference is that the trumpet is SUPPOSED to be resonant. The beauty of TTs is that they too as a system have resonant issues that the "audiophile" can individually address - thus raising their personal Tweakrating. As long as there is no "measure" of Tweaquality, Tweakability is primarily in the lucrative subjective, suggestive zone for those "paying for a service that they have no chance of comparing". I am not saying that there is no difference, but how do we determine what "gets more out of the groove" really means? How can we, without having a vast "earned" knowledge of what the recording engineer did, what equipment he use - QUANTIFY what we hear in respect to the entire audio system? At what point do our TTtweaks actually compensate for problems elsewhere? Do we "solidify" the bass with mass in the TT and arm? Do we need additional help from the phono corrector to get the "proper" balance from a particular record? At what point does one mans air and sparkle become anothers earache?

I really wish that high enders would really look at Romy documentation and think about that before posting here. I would much prefer to learn something rather than getting repeated confirmation about activity in the stratosphere. Context and content would be WONDERFUL especially when one does get to play with a state of the financial art piece of equipment.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	138
Post ID:	20778
Reply to:	20777

Context/Content

Robin, I'm sure you noticed that the AF1 "reviewer" used the usual "audiophile" recordings, and - presumably - the usual audiophile criteria and the usual audiophile ancillary equipment and settings for evaluating the AF1. Of course, we at GSC know better, and so try to use more evolved methodology to arrive at more pertinent results. This does striate the discussion; but I always assume I am talking to peers when I reel off my thoughts on the matters, supposing that others can somehow establish a relevant context, each for him/her self, in order to glean something useful (and maybe even a laugh) from even the usual vested posts.

A recent session with another high end system made it clear (again) to me: other factors allowing, a well-done heavy platter allows for - if nothing else - musically expressive and deeply relevant LF; and I'm not sure any other approach does this.

Best regards,
Paul S

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

steverino
Posts 367
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #:	139
Post ID:	20779
Reply to:	20776

Fluttering in the breeze

Paul,

I searched for the discussion on platter weight optimality but couldn't find it. Anyway I assume people know I was referring to a one person lift turntable on a stand, not a one finger lift. Assuming a platter weight in the 25 pound range and a turntable around 50 pounds, the point I was making is that we don't know much about the tradeoffs of doing one thing or the other. Romy is right that this is not a manufacturing state of the art question nor does it require pure platinum turntables (not to give anyone ideas). There is the question of the electrical motor, the AC that feeds the motor, the way that the platter is driven, acoustic feedback etc etc. But to say that XXX platter weight is required is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Amplifiers like boat anchors were being built and then the Gain Card came along and people are now making ultra small amps. These things go in cycles indicating that something is being lost at the same time an advance (or desired change) is made in some area. When something is truly better such as analog tape compared to cylinders you don't see the cycles.

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #:	141
Post ID:	20781
Reply to:	20777

A Few Points

1- Romy, a $200 microscope was shit 30 years ago when I bought mine and is still a piece of shit today. Manufacturing 5-10 SX-8000 type tables a year is inexpensive, its when you go to 50-100 units a year, AF1 market, that cost of operations escalate significantly. Depending on the product the overhead costs in this category have to be amortized over 1000+ units/year not affect final pricing, not going to happen with AF1. You can't and shouldn't define cost vs value based on your wishes, the marketplace should be the judge. Of course that's if you believe in free markets. I don't know anyone who's paid anywhere close to the msrp flying around here.
2- rowuk, musical instruments and playback equipment have nothing in common. The musical instrument is an extension of the musician, the quality of the performance is dependent on the person actively manipulating it creating the performance. The best playback equipment are designed to get out of the way and create nothing. The average Joe sitting in the audience doesn't have to nor is he capable of distinguishing between quality or price of the instrument. Its the musician who should understand and appreciate the differences between instruments! Did you pay $13k for nothing? Final cost of a tt or your musical instrument is dependent on a lot of variables, how do you decide if or what is seriously wrong?
3- The very first true ultra high end REFERENCE quality turntable was the EMT 927 and arguably up to now it still remains as THE REFERENCE STANDARD. For the past 60 years there have been a number of different designs claiming Reference standards but imo only a handful deserve that title and only a couple of which could be called REFERENCE. Given the numerous number of tt manufacturers and turntables made compared to so few true REFERENCE tts, from where I'm sitting all this conjecture regarding design parameters, imo is nothing but mental masturbation!
david

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

rowuk

Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #:	142
Post ID:	20782
Reply to:	20780

Platter evolution

If we look generally at stability from bridges to optical measurement benches, mass has one function - tune resonance or place it outside of the desired passband. Other methods are chosen when we want to convert energy to heat.

Do we know what a "lighter honeycomb" platter sounds like with the rigidity, and resonance optimization of a heavier unit (it is possible)? Can we say that we need the mass to "ground" the record? Where is that optimum resonance? Can we with confidence say that motors and energy transmission (rubber band, arimide fiber, idler wheel) are such shit that only mass can smooth them out? Is that what we are really hearing or is it an easy story to tell? Does the compliance of the cartridge play a role in the optimum mass tuning? Is the problem airborne vibration?

This is what I am talking about when I ask about "content". I have seen all sorts of stability pseudoarguments that could have merit when we are grinding lenses for the next telescope project. Sure, more stabile is always "better" - but how does that relate to Sound? If we simply keep adding mass, what happens to the Sound vs the environmental effects. What are we hearing that is supposedly "so" different?

I guess that part of my thoughts come from the fact that I have heard enough EMT (928/930), Thorens TD125, Linn Sondek LP12, even the top Dual CS series TTs that really sounded great in appropriate systems. Bass extension, contour, space around the instruments, stability of pitch, sense of pitch all were/are of great measure. Perhaps in another category? I am not sure where the differences could be because I am sure that a set up optimized around an LP12 will perhaps NOT be optimal with a very massive deck. I used a Revox 700 for playback of 38cm half track original tapes (popular in the 60s in Germany) and was able to compare the sound between the record and "tape master dub".

I am not saying that the AF1 is NOT a statement, I simply have not seen/heard what I consider valid arguments for better Sound at any price. If the achievement is just "more of what we suspected all along", then the tales to be told can indeed be very subjective/suggestive. The AF2, 3, 4 can weigh twice as much and the price linearly adjusted.

A turntable remains a highly resonant creature regardless. The cantilever, the record itself, the susceptibility to environmental conditions ALL change the groove to something sonically very individual. It is NEVER a copy of the original. Perhaps well set up systems can compensate sins to get a balanced "sound". If I want reference, then there are more reliable and consistent ways to get there (without the TT). Change the room temperature 5-10° and then check your playback characteristics........... Reference? Hardly. The disc changes its "hardness" and the cantilever suspension its "compliance". Maybe the goal of advanced record playback should NOT be playback, rather emotion........... In this respect a TT IS a musical instrument with tweakable response - not consistent reference playback.

Mental stroking is more prevalent when "magic through monumental" becomes the argument.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

05-06-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	143
Post ID:	20783
Reply to:	20781

A Few Points as well.

dkarmeli wrote:
You can't and shouldn't define cost vs value based on your wishes, the marketplace should be the judge. Of course that's if you believe in free markets.

Well, you unwillingly are revealing the biggest secret of any civilized person: a sense of value is based only upon owner wished and nothing else. I have been practicing audio sine 8 years old and I wish I learned it sooner. David, please do not hallucinate about the existing of marketplace or rule of market in high end audio. Among all people you should know better. There is no market pricing in audio. There is only mental abuse and financial extortion in psychologically disturbed people in high end audio – that is how the prices are formed in high end. Your new TT is a great example. It cost $100K – for all intended purpose a high price. In 10 years let say 50 of them will be sold. Now, how many people among the 50 owner would realize or even understand the true sonic potential of this TT? You know that I very seldom ask question if I do not know the answers….

dkarmeli wrote:
The best playback equipment are designed to get out of the way and create nothing.

Unfortunately it is juts bumper sticker comment and has nothing to do with applied audio.

dkarmeli wrote:
…from where I'm sitting all this conjecture regarding design parameters, imo is nothing but mental masturbation!

It is juts your opinion but you are not interested in the subject of design parameters. The whole point of this thread is the design characteristic of hypothetically an ultimate turntable. You put yourself in some kind of special siting position but the fact that you “buy” TTs does not make you a valuable judge to evaluate conjectures regarding design parameters. You know well that there is a very big gap between making something from scratch and just using something.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-07-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #:	144
Post ID:	20785
Reply to:	20783

Some more points

Romy the Cat wrote:

David, please do not hallucinate about the existing of marketplace or rule of market in high end audio. Among all people you should know better. There is no market pricing in audio. There is only mental abuse and financial extortion in psychologically disturbed people in high end audio – that is how the prices are formed in high end. Your new TT is a great example. It cost $100K – for all intended purpose a high price. In 10 years let say 50 of them will be sold. Now, how many people among the 50 owner would realize or even understand the true sonic potential of this TT? You know that I very seldom ask question if I do not know the answers….

It depends on the product and the company, not all are thieves!
As of now they are selling 50 - 60 units/year and cheaper AF2 will also be available shortly.
You seem to be obsessed with the $100k price, as I mentioned above that's not the street price. $100k is there to keep it the same as the European msrp. Do the math and see how you get there;
Factory cost and margin + International Wholesaler margin + shipping, import duty & vat + distributor margin + retail margin + weak obama dollar = $100k.

Romy the Cat wrote:
dkarmeli wrote:
The best playback equipment are designed to get out of the way and create nothing.
Unfortunately it is juts bumper sticker comment and has nothing to do with applied audio.

If you say so…

Romy the Cat wrote:
dkarmeli wrote:
…from where I'm sitting all this conjecture regarding design parameters, imo is nothing but mental masturbation!
It is juts your opinion but you are not interested in the subject of design parameters. The whole point of this thread is the design characteristic of hypothetically an ultimate turntable. You put yourself in some kind of special siting position but the fact that you “buy” TTs does not make you a valuable judge to evaluate conjectures regarding design parameters. You know well that there is a very big gap between making something from scratch and just using something.

Please don't stop on my behalf, continue masturbating!
david

05-07-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	145
Post ID:	20786
Reply to:	20785

You understand what you want to understand

dkarmeli wrote:

It depends on the product and the company, not all are thieves!
As of now they are selling 50 - 60 units/year and cheaper AF2 will also be available shortly.
You seem to be obsessed with the $100k price, as I mentioned above that's not the street price. $100k is there to keep it the same as the European msrp. Do the math and see how you get there;
Factory cost and margin + International Wholesaler margin + shipping, import duty & vat + distributor margin + retail margin + weak obama dollar = $100k.

Actually I am not obsessed with absolute price of this TT. I presume that the street price is very reasonably, particularly in comparing to many other near $100k TT that offer in fact very medical performance. I think you have miss my point all together. Regardless how much the TT actually costs: $10K , $40K or $60K the price is what we are willing to pay for it not what it "cost to make" and the price for the items like TT could and shall not be explained by "complexity of design" and "precision of making". There is nothing complex of precise in TTs for contemporary production technologies. 7 years back Leica lenses were polished by tips of fingers by pregnant women and they use unique Australian sand to boil glass. Today that "uniqueness" does not exist and contemporary precision machining is just a basic norm. For sure there is uniqueness in today making but it not among our turntables. uniqueness in TT is that other TT might sound like shit but this one might sound different, however it would not be because the "complexity of design" or "precision of making", the characteristics that you use to justify pricing.

You understand what you want to understand, the very same taking goes to your bitching about the "weak obama dollar". You are perfectly within your rights to hate Obama but you are blin that your favorite Bush crashed the dollar.

http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=USD&c2=JPY&days=3650

Not everything is perception, David, some perception has to be bind to reality....

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-07-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #:	146
Post ID:	20787
Reply to:	20786

Facts

Romy the Cat wrote:
dkarmeli wrote:

It depends on the product and the company, not all are thieves!
As of now they are selling 50 - 60 units/year and cheaper AF2 will also be available shortly.
You seem to be obsessed with the $100k price, as I mentioned above that's not the street price. $100k is there to keep it the same as the European msrp. Do the math and see how you get there;
Factory cost and margin + International Wholesaler margin + shipping, import duty & vat + distributor margin + retail margin + weak obama dollar = $100k.

Actually I am not obsessed with absolute price of this TT. I presume that the street price is very reasonably, particularly in comparing to many other near $100k TT that offer in fact very medical performance. I think you have miss my point all together. Regardless how much the TT actually costs: $10K , $40K or $60K the price is what we are willing to pay for it not what it "cost to make" and the price for the items like TT could and shall not be explained by "complexity of design" and "precision of making". There is nothing complex of precise in TTs for contemporary production technologies.

We've been discussing the price of AF1 all this time and why it costs what it does, nothing to do with what one is willing to pay for it.

Romy the Cat wrote:
7 years back Leica lenses were polished by tips of fingers by pregnant women and they use unique Australian sand to boil glass. Today that "uniqueness" does not exist and contemporary precision machining is just a basic norm. For sure there is uniqueness in today making but it not among our turntables. uniqueness in TT is that other TT might sound like shit but this one might sound different, however it would not be because the "complexity of design" or "precision of making", the characteristics that you use to justify pricing.

If there's nothing to it why have there not been so very few true high end turntables in past 60 years since the EMT 927? Still today, we both know how shit almost all the turntables out there sound. In the case of AF1 I justify the street price based on production costs.

Romy the Cat wrote:
You understand what you want to understand, the very same taking goes to your bitching about the "weak obama dollar". You are perfectly within your rights to hate Obama but you are blin that your favorite Bush crashed the dollar.

http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=USD&c2=JPY&days=3650

Not everything is perception, David, some perception has to be bind to reality....

The price was based on 2012 exchange rates, check them out! Yen has weakened since then but not Euro. Bush was not my favorite and my there's nothing blind about my disdain for BO, its with both eyes open. You're right, one of us is blind to reality; and its not me.
This is just a little brief simple article on the dollar and the debt, I won't even try to get into all the other things that are going wrong today...
http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/p/dollar_collapse.htm

05-07-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	147
Post ID:	20788
Reply to:	20786

Where Platter Mass Goes to Die

FYI, All, the platter mass discussion launches on page 2 of this thread. Maybe re-reading the thread will spark additional thoughts on these and other previously-discussed matters. At present, we seem to be going in circles.

David, looking at modern, Kansei engineering and manufacturing processes, how does current TT R&D and manufacturing draw on current SOTA methods, methodology and materials, really, given finite analyses, end to end, on the entire process? It appears to me that the biggest problems here are limited information sharing and resource pooling, along with a very small and relatively "volatile" market (ie, no "drivers"). Sure, this does "justify" current pricing. But it is equally "true" to say a TT could/should cost less, IF TTs were made like... potato chips. To date, it looks like the only TTs to benefit from anything even approaching up-to-date protocols are the "mass market" tables, where the aim is not all that high in the first place.

I agree with Romy that it certainly appears that all the pieces and parts are already "out there", just waiting to be put together. And I can't shake the idea that everything needed for the job has been around since the 60s, if not the 50s. By saying this, I don't mean to exclude more recent "developments". But I do mean to re-assert that current "technology", per se, is not the problem.

Paul S

05-07-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

rowuk

Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #:	148
Post ID:	20789
Reply to:	20788

I am getting dizzy

Going in circles is bad for your health. Just like every other thread on expensive gear, the name calling starts where the good reason stops.

Regardless of how we calculate, 100K is artificial because there are people willing to pay it. It has NOTHING to do with superior or new technology. There is no reason for a turntable to cost as much as a Ferrari or Porsche. Those cars weigh more, have more engineering, horsepower and cost of construction and definitely can't be called "shit".

So maybe now that we have put the price into perspective, why not finally try to figure out what makes this thing supposedly so hot........

I found this for 25 grand (Euros).
http://www.tw-acustic.de/de/laufwerke/raven-black-night

Seems to be a great deal. Even has a battery for the 3 motors to eliminate those contaminated electrons. It will hold 4 tonearms and got some great reviews here in Germany. I know that the guy from Cessaro uses it.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

05-07-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	149
Post ID:	20790
Reply to:	20787

I wish you were able to stop to be "owner"

dkarmeli wrote:
We've been discussing the price of AF1 all this time and why it costs what it does, nothing to do with what one is willing to pay for it.

Actually I am not " discussing the price of AF1 all this time". The conversation about the general price of TTs started long time before your AF1 become even a subject. I think 10 years ago I wrote in an article "A Foolishness of analog people" where I postulated that $3000 worth Micro RX5000 is sane and reasonable balance between cost, value and performance. I did express doubts that reportedly better TTs, or objectively more expensive TTs in fact over perform RX5000, or at least the level of potential over performance is realized by the system owners. If that proverbial RX5000 cost $3000 10 years back with all complexity of super duper precision manufacturing then how much shall it cost now? The answer is the same $3000. It is not a conversation about adjusted inflation but about the fact that for $3000 is perfectly possible to get a performance level for TT that would be VERY hard to beat, if the objective is not an intellectual masturbation but the actual result.

BTW, I do not against TT, or any other pieces of audio, because they cost a lot of money.
I own plenty of super expensive things that I do feel add to sonic result that I'm getting some benefits and I completely voluntary bought them. However, I also admit that I paid just because I wanted to do it and because there are plenty people like men not because the cost of the items presume some kind of quality. I do not say that when I pay for something a huge amount of money then I am fool. I however insist that there is nothing truly "unique" in many items I own and there is no reason for them to cost as they are.

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-07-2014

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

dkarmeli
Posts 27
Joined on 01-25-2013

Post #:	150
Post ID:	20791
Reply to:	20789

Looks that way...

rowuk wrote:
Going in circles is bad for your health. Just like every other thread on expensive gear, the name calling starts where the good reason stops.

Regardless of how we calculate, 100K is artificial because there are people willing to pay it. It has NOTHING to do with superior or new technology. There is no reason for a turntable to cost as much as a Ferrari or Porsche. Those cars weigh more, have more engineering, horsepower and cost of construction and definitely can't be called "shit".

So maybe now that we have put the price into perspective, why not finally try to figure out what makes this thing supposedly so hot........

I found this for 25 grand (Euros).
http://www.tw-acustic.de/de/laufwerke/raven-black-night

Seems to be a great deal. Even has a battery for the 3 motors to eliminate those contaminated electrons. It will hold 4 tonearms and got some great reviews here in Germany. I know that the guy from Cessaro uses it.

You'd think that by now there should be plenty of super duper tables out there for a very reasonable sum, but that's not the case. The Raven is a good table but still in USD, it costs quite a bit and sonically just on a par with a 30 year old RX-5000. Everything looks easy and simple specially something like a tt that's been around forever and its relatively low tech, until you try to take it to the next level. A simple thing like a spring has been around for centuries, the next logical step was to improve its long term reliability but nobody did. I have two patents on a simple, stupid spring. I sold the usage rights to one of the largest manufacturers in the US with full disclosure. There's no technology here, just basic tooling and yet couldn't it reproduce it properly. If something is special and beyond other competitors then there's something more than meets the eye.
david

	Target	Threads for related reading	Most recent post in related threads	Forum	Replies	Views	Started
»	New	Michael Fremer Continuums…..	Pre-manufactured box speaker...	Audio News Forum	54	613343	01-21-2006
»	New	The Foolishness of Analog People..	Late to the discussion but cannot resist...	Analog Playback Forum	56	584863	01-30-2006
»	New	A longer turntable belt...	SP10 and the Japanese contribution to audio...	Analog Playback Forum	60	518223	02-02-2006
»	New	My Analog Playback: the fat lady has sung..	My analog setup update....	Analog Playback Forum	9	119458	04-04-2006
»	New	Micro Seiki SZ-1T..	I guess it's my own fault....	Analog Playback Forum	2	36905	06-10-2008
»	New	Dynamic viscose stabilization of turntable’s platter...	JA Michell Hydraulic Reference...	Analog Playback Forum	15	120201	11-26-2008
»	New	Active Tonearm Monitoring System...	The most idiotic idea I’ve ever seen...	Analog Playback Forum	2	37850	07-14-2009
»	New	The HoroMusic turnable...	And the 27" long tonearm might be a Moronic as thi...	Analog Playback Forum	6	67841	08-05-2009
»	New	Audio Note new turntable and inflation..	Audio Note Ginga Turntable...	Analog Playback Forum	14	157715	01-03-2010
»	New	How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?..	How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?...	Analog Playback Forum	0	18723	03-13-2010
»	New	A turntable platter as a turbine?..	A turntable platter as a turbine?...	Analog Playback Forum	0	16754	10-27-2010

	Target	Threads for related reading	Most recent post in related threads	Forum	Replies	Views	Started
»	New	Michael Fremer Continuums…..	Pre-manufactured box speaker...	Audio News Forum	54	613343	01-21-2006
»	New	The Foolishness of Analog People..	Late to the discussion but cannot resist...	Analog Playback Forum	56	584863	01-30-2006
»	New	A longer turntable belt...	SP10 and the Japanese contribution to audio...	Analog Playback Forum	60	518223	02-02-2006
»	New	My Analog Playback: the fat lady has sung..	My analog setup update....	Analog Playback Forum	9	119458	04-04-2006
»	New	Micro Seiki SZ-1T..	I guess it's my own fault....	Analog Playback Forum	2	36905	06-10-2008
»	New	Dynamic viscose stabilization of turntable’s platter...	JA Michell Hydraulic Reference...	Analog Playback Forum	15	120201	11-26-2008
»	New	Active Tonearm Monitoring System...	The most idiotic idea I’ve ever seen...	Analog Playback Forum	2	37850	07-14-2009
»	New	The HoroMusic turnable...	And the 27" long tonearm might be a Moronic as thi...	Analog Playback Forum	6	67841	08-05-2009
»	New	Audio Note new turntable and inflation..	Audio Note Ginga Turntable...	Analog Playback Forum	14	157715	01-03-2010
»	New	How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?..	How much does it cost to stabilize a turntable speed?...	Analog Playback Forum	0	18723	03-13-2010
»	New	A turntable platter as a turbine?..	A turntable platter as a turbine?...	Analog Playback Forum	0	16754	10-27-2010